PER CURIAM.
I. INTRODUCTION
We must decide whether the superior court erred in failing to award costs and attorney's fees after dismissing without prejudice to refiling in Barrow an administrative appeal that had been improperly filed in Anchorage. Although we conclude that the award was a matter for the court's discretion under Alaska Appellate Rule 508, we remand because the court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying costs and fees.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On December 29, 1995, the North Slope Borough Board of Equalization (NSB) assessed personal property taxes against Green International (Green) for the period spanning 1989 to 1993. Green filed an administrative appeal, which it lost. Green appealed that decision to the superior court, filing its notice of appeal in Anchorage. After unsuccessfully attempting to convince Green to stipulate that Barrow was the appropriate location for filing the appeal, NSB moved to transfer venue, arguing that venue in Anchorage was improper. On March 17, 1997, the superior court in Anchorage granted NSB's motion and ordered Green's complaint dismissed "without prejudice if appeal is filed with the Second Judicial District, Barrow [within] 15 days."
Green refiled its appeal in Barrow and did not appeal the Anchorage superior court's order. On April 3, 1997, NSB filed a motion in the Anchorage case requesting $2100 in costs and attorney's fees that it had incurred while litigating venue. Green opposed and asked for costs and attorney's fees that it had incurred in opposing NSB's motion for costs. The superior court denied fees and costs to both parties stating: "This was a fairly close jurisdictional question. There was no vexatious action by either party. Costs may be addressed at [the] conclusion of appeal." NSB appeals this denial.
III. DISCUSSION
Given that Green did not appeal the superior court's March 17 order of dismissal, we assume for purposes of this decision that the court was correct in determining that Green's appeal was improperly filed in Anchorage and that a dismissal, rather than a transfer of venue, was the appropriate remedy for Green's improper filing.
We express no view as to whether Alaska Civil Rule 3 and AS 22.10.040 generally apply for purposes of determining the proper venue for commencement of an administrative appeal.
See Ko-Am Enters. v. Davis, 657 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1983) (indicating that transfer of venue, rather than dismissal, is ordinarily the preferred remedy).
In denying NSB's motion for costs and fees, the superior court in Anchorage indicated that the issue of NSB's prevailing party costs and fees could be taken up after disposition of the appeal in Barrow. Implicit in this approach is the view that the Anchorage and Barrow appeals amounted to a single proceeding — that dismissal without prejudice was a de facto transfer of venue. This view is incorrect as a matter of law. The March 17 order dismissing Green's appeal without prejudice terminated the appeal in Anchor.